Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Oh, okay. So the DA said no-go, then he showed you evidence?
Or did he show you, then say no-go? And I'm still waiting on the proof
you have? Stop keeping us all in waiting....

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Oh, okay. So the DA said no-go, then he showed you evidence?
Or did he show you, then say no-go? And I'm still waiting on the proof
you have? Stop keeping us all in waiting....

Wounded head, lack of any witnesses to show it was Zimmerman who started the fight, etc etc.

Whats yours? I'm sure you must have some evidence if you believe he is guilty.

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Oh, okay. So the DA said no-go, then he showed you evidence?
Or did he show you, then say no-go? And I'm still waiting on the proof
you have? Stop keeping us all in waiting....

Wounded head, lack of any witnesses to show it was Zimmerman who started the fight, etc etc.

Have fun with Bi-cat in ignore land......

alarmingrick wrote:
A 10-32(that's walking while being black according to a good black friend of mine.

a few seconds on Google would have told you a 10-32 is a man with a gun. So if we rephrase your question to "would you a Royal Marine shoot a man with a gun?"
I feel like you can see the obviousness of the answer.

Manchu wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

I think I already said it in this thread but its incredibly easy to bash someones skull in. Especially in the rear. I also tangentially pointed out that the lack of copious blood from his skull wounds indicates extremely minor wounds, but the point remains...easy to bash in a skull.

I'm not saying this as a criticism of what Zimmerman did in the heat of the moment but as a criticism of Mr. Hyena evaluating from a position of safety who deserved what now that everything is said and done.

Oh, well carry on then.

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

You have control of how you present yourself. So far you have chosen poorly...

Hello pot please meet kettle. Maybe your mother will come take your computer away before you decide to actually move from rude to insulting.

CT GAMER wrote:

I'm not listening to or commenting on the specifics of your moronic ramblings so you can save them.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had to be a bored kid caught up in the rush of trying to be an internet tough guy.

If you are an adult that is even worse...

Please consider editing your posts, you sound ridiculous even by dakka's impressive trolling standards.

Too late.

Can people maybe stop announcing that they're putting someone on ignore like it's IRC or something?

Vaerros wrote:Can people maybe stop announcing that they're putting someone on ignore like it's IRC or something?

AustonT: sets user Vaerros to mode +m

AustonT wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:
A 10-32(that's walking while being black according to a good black friend of mine.

a few seconds on Google would have told you a 10-32 is a man with a gun. So if we rephrase your question to "would you a Royal Marine shoot a man with a gun?"
I feel like you can see the obviousness of the answer.

Hey man, I'm just repeating what my friend told me. I don't know if it's based on RL or not.

And the obvious answer would be no, he wouldn't. mattrm would catch the lead sent his way with his teeth and return fire with it.
At least if you listen to him tell it....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaerros wrote:Can people maybe stop announcing that they're putting someone on ignore like it's IRC or something?

You have to be a member here longer than 2 days before you can start making such insane requests!
Welcome, BTW! But don't push it!

alarmingrick wrote:
You have to be a member here longer than 2 days before you can start making such insane requests!
Welcome, BTW! But don't push it!

Thanks, but I've been here for a bit(my other account is Ronin-Sage, but I decided to change my name).

You could have just asked for a name change.

Somebody killed somebody, but its okay because he was attacked. The guy with the gun said so.

True story based on the old dependable "But mom, he started it!" defense employed by small children everywhere.

Best way to stop any evidence to the contrary is to get rid of the witness, I learned that by watching Law & Order.

Look at me, I'm an expert!

d-usa wrote:Somebody killed somebody, but its okay because he was attacked. The guy with the gun said so.

True story based on the old dependable "But mom, he started it!" defense employed by small children everywhere.

Best way to stop any evidence to the contrary is to get rid of the witness, I learned that by watching Law & Order.

Look at me, I'm an expert!

Law & Order fan does not an expert make!

But, yeah, you're right on the rest of it.

AustonT wrote:You could have just asked for a name change.

It occurred to me, but reading the FAQ section on the topic kind of dissuaded me.

Vaerros wrote:

AustonT wrote:You could have just asked for a name change.

It occurred to me, but reading the FAQ section on the topic kind of dissuaded me.

Then you're just a Noob.

mattyrm wrote:

Vaerros wrote:
In this case, I think we're dealing with an absence of information -- it's possible that Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating his head in -- it also appears possible that they were both wrestling around on the ground or what have you. It's certainly a tricky situation.

You hit the nail on the head old chap, and managed to explain it better in one sentence than I did in 100. There is no solid information, and the authorities didn't press, thus I find Shuma type levels of rage to be silly.

He might be a stone cold killer, he might not be at all, in such cases, I side with the authorities. We can but wait and see the outcome.

The original issue in this case is that the authorities initially elected not to investigate in any depth. And a lot of folks think that seems strange and wrong when an unarmed teenager winds up dead at the hands of a guy who is bigger, older, armed and has chosen to take on the role of neighborhood watchman and should be (as a general rule and as a specific policy of neighborhood watch groups) avoiding confrontations and violence.

The DA's decision not to pursue it may have been reasonable in his opinion based on the legal situation as it stands in Florida, based on the Stand Your Ground law, and how high a burden it puts on the state to demonstrate that the killer could not possibly have been acting in self defense, before it can even go to trial. He may have figured that the judge would throw it out as it looked to him like Zimmerman could make even a half-decent case that it was self defense. But a situation like this also calls into question whether the law in Florida, and particularly the way it is applied there, is right or should be changed.

It may well turn out that Zimmerman was defending himself, and he may justly be found not guilty. But I do think, from the info we have, the situation called for more investigation in the first place, which shouldn't have required a pubic outcry to make happen, but did. If people had just sat and waited, there would be no outcome. Now there will be.

d-usa wrote:Somebody killed somebody, but its okay because he was attacked. The guy with the gun said so.

True story based on the old dependable "But mom, he started it!" defense employed by small children everywhere.

Best way to stop any evidence to the contrary is to get rid of the witness, I learned that by watching Law & Order.

Look at me, I'm an expert!

Dude, real experts watch The Wire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Oh, okay. So the DA said no-go, then he showed you evidence?
Or did he show you, then say no-go? And I'm still waiting on the proof
you have? Stop keeping us all in waiting....

Wounded head, lack of any witnesses to show it was Zimmerman who started the fight, etc etc.

Whats yours? I'm sure you must have some evidence if you believe he is guilty.

1) A wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight.
2) There are no impartial witnesses who have testified who started the fight. Only two people knew for certain who started it and one is dead.

But the injuries listed on Martin's autopsy taht we have seen so far do not include anything related to him being hit by Zimmerman. But it does include scratched knuckle. And Zimmerman did have damage consistent with being hit a few times.

Again, the info released is limited, but if Zimmerman started the fight I would expect there to be some mark/bruise/broken nose/tooth on Martin when the whole thing comes out.

So, a wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight. But if only one party has damage corresponding to being hit, you do start to develop a picture...

CptJake wrote:But the injuries listed on Martin's autopsy taht we have seen so far do not include anything related to him being hit by Zimmerman. But it does include scratched knuckle. And Zimmerman did have damage consistent with being hit a few times.

Again, the info released is limited, but if Zimmerman started the fight I would expect there to be some mark/bruise/broken nose/tooth on Martin when the whole thing comes out.

So, a wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight. But if only one party has damage corresponding to being hit, you do start to develop a picture...

Could you develop bruises from being shoved?

streamdragon wrote:Again, Zimmerman did this against both the police request that he stay in his car, and against the policy of his neighborhood watch group.

He was told that he "didn't have to follow him," not to "stay in his car."

Neigborhood watch rules are not laws. That point is moot.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

and BTW you can hear Zimmerman saying F**king C**N on the call to the police so thats evidence of malice before the altercation

Gun control only takes guns away from the law-abiding folks who would use them legally. The individuals that break the law obviously don't care about it, so why should they care about gun control laws?

And no, you can't. You can speculate on what was heard, but the FBI investigated and determined that what was said in the actual 911 recording was not discernible.

CT GAMER wrote:Two people know the facts and one of them murdered the other one. How convienant...

EXACTLY. TWO people know the facts. You are not one of the two. Therefore, logic dictates that you do not know the facts. Stating blatantly that one murdered the other is just ridiculous.


One last thing. It keeps on coming up that Martin was "half the size of Zimmerman." This is not true. While Zimmerman is approximately 5'7" and weighs in at 200 lbs, Martin was 6'2" and weighed around 150.

You could get away with saying that Martin was 3/4 the density of Zimmerman, but that's about it.

Hazardous Harry wrote:There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

pfftttt

Maybe he fell backwards onto the pavement or something? Doesn't look bruised up enough to be blunt trauma, nor does it look like the mark of a weapon at all.

The nose is odd though. Could've been punched.

What if.... Martin was his dope connection 0-0

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

and BTW you can hear Zimmerman saying F**king C**N on the call to the police so thats evidence of malice before the altercation

Agreeing with nocturn here. Gun control does nothing but interfere with the rights of law abiding citizens. Criminals will always get guns illegally anyway. If you're the game of thugery, you're probably not worried in the least about getting arrested for illegal gun possession.

In boxing (as one example of an unarmed fighting contect) five or ten pounds is considered a substantial advantage, never mind fifty.

The difference between a teenager's build and strength and a grown man's is more than trivial. Some teens do work out and are athletic, but 150 v. 200? That's a lot smaller in fighting terms.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

pfftttt

Maybe he fell backwards onto the pavement or something? Doesn't look bruised up enough to be blunt trauma, nor does it look like the mark of a weapon at all.

The nose is odd though. Could've been punched.

What if.... Martin was his dope connection 0-0

Um, the weed was in Martin's system. Not Zimmerman's, as far as I'm aware.

Mannahnin wrote:In boxing (as one example of an unarmed fighting contect) five or ten pounds is considered a substantial advantage, never mind fifty.

The difference between a teenager's build and strength and a grown man's is more than trivial. Some teens do work out and are athletic, but 150 v. 200? That's a lot smaller in fighting terms.

I'm not trying to state otherwise, I was just pointing out that when people were saying that Martin was half of Zimmerman's size, they were incorrect.

Only in a purely mathematical sense. In the sense of when you look at two dudes and size up that one is a lot bigger than the other, the size disparity is right around where we coloquially say that one is twice the size of the other.

When we warn a friend that the guy he's pissing off is twice his size, we're not busting out the scales. We mean the guy is a lot bigger; and that the size disparity is obvious at a glance. 200 vs 150 is a lot bigger.

True, but Zimmerman's weight advantage is diminished somewhat by Martin's height advantage.

Nocturn wrote:True, but Zimmerman's weight advantage is diminished somewhat by Martin's height advantage.

It would also be diminished by Martin's reach, and the fact that Zimmerman is carrying a lot of fat on him that Martin seemed to be lacking.

Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape. It MAY help in a grappling/wrestling situation but even then if the extra 50 is fat the fat guy may well get worn out fast.

And again, being bigger or smaller really has no bearing on the situation except to these internet judge/jury combinations.

Jake, you know better than that. Reach certainly helps, but in boxing and wrestling they don't put you in a different category of opponent based on your reach- they do it on weight. Because weight much more directly corresponds to strength and ability to absorb punishment.

Sure, weight doesn't tell the whole tale. 5'7" and 200lbs is overweight at a glance, but could still certainly be muscular. 6'2" and 150 is SKINNY. Not muscular. Not strong. I'm just under 6' and pushing 160 on a slender frame thanks to a little bit of an incipient gut; I am not a strong dude. 6'2" and 150 is a beanpole.

Mannahnin wrote:Jake, you know better than that. Reach certainly helps, but in boxing and wrestling they don't put you in a different category of opponent based on your reach- they do it on weight. Because weight much more directly corresponds to strength and ability to absorb punishment.

Sure, weight doesn't tell the whole tale. 5'7" and 200lbs is overweight at a glance, but could still certainly be muscular. 6'2" and 150 is SKINNY. Not muscular. Not strong. I'm just under 6' and pushing 160 on a slender frame thanks to a little bit of an incipient gut; I am not a strong dude. 6'2" and 150 is a beanpole.

No, I don't know better. I've fought with a guy in the pugil stick pit who had 75 pounds on me and about 6 inches reach, but who was a fat slob and lost his wind VERY fast. I also boxed against a guy I had 30 pounds on who was in FANTASTIC shape and he beat the snot outta me. In pro boxing and actual wrestling the weight classes keep guys in about the same condition on a somewhat equal basis due to the weight class. Take away the 'in about the same condition' and the weight really isn't as important.

But again, NONE of that makes any difference to this case unless you are the super cool internet judge/jury type.

Neither of them, as far as we know, were trained in either boxing or wrestling.

This also is assuming that what Martin's family said was correct. They stated that he was 6'3" and weighed "at most" 150 lbs. The police report states he was 6' and weighed 160 lbs. The coroner determined that Martin was 5'11" and 158 lbs.

At both 5'11" and 6', Martin still has a height advantage, and both respective weights are the average build for that height.

CptJake wrote:

No, I don't know better. I've fought with a guy in the pugil stick pit who had 75 pounds on me and about 6 inches reach, but who was a fat slob and lost his wind VERY fast. I also boxed against a guy I had 30 pounds on who was in FANTASTIC shape and he beat the snot outta me. In pro boxing and actual wrestling the weight classes keep guys in about the same condition on a somewhat equal basis due to the weight class. Take away the 'in about the same condition' and the weight really isn't as important.

But again, NONE of that makes any difference to this case unless you are the super cool internet judge/jury type.

Ironic given your above statement. How many people do kickboxing on here?

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) A wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight.
2) There are no impartial witnesses who have testified who started the fight. Only two people knew for certain who started it and one is dead.

"Presumption of innocence" - Look it up.